Krim, you asked ... "Shouldn't a belief system be judged by the amount of original experience it gives rise to?"
[Ian] This is where DMB is right, that you have misunderstood (talking past) the basic point about first-hand and second hand beliefs. Experience doesn't "arise" out of anything other than experience ... and the belief systems arise out of the experience (unless you prefer yours second hand ?). [Krimel] Come on Ian, how does that make any sense at all? How could I have a second hand belief? I can't borrow someone else's belief and put it on like a borrowed sweater. Or perhaps you mean that second hand beliefs are beliefs derived from personal experience with someone else who shares beliefs that I agree with and make my own. In that case how could I have a firsthand belief? All of my experience revolves around my participation in the beliefs of others. All of my beliefs are similarly derived. I don't see how the distinction is at all meaningful. But even so how is Buddhism less of a second hand belief system than Christianity? It is derived from the original experience of the Buddha. It provides a system of thought and practice that is supposed to lead one to an experience like the Buddha had. Christianity is a system of thought and practice designed to lead one to an experience of fellowship with the living God. All I said what either system should be judged on how well it serves its mission. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
